Trump says US will put weapons in space as part of ‘Golden Dome' plan
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have laid out their clearest plan yet for the 'Golden Dome' missile defence programme, which would include putting weapons in space for the first time.
Speaking from the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he had 'officially selected an architecture' for the system, designed to take down 'hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles and advanced cruise missiles'.
'I promised the American people that I would build a cutting-edge missile defence shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
The Golden Dome system, he added, would include 'space-based sensors and interceptors'.
' Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they're launched from space,' Trump continued. 'We will have the best system ever built.'
The announcement comes just less than four months after Trump signed an executive order kicking off the programme's development. General Michael Guetlein – who currently serves as the vice chief of space operations at Space Force, a branch of the US military – is slated to manage the programme.
Speaking at the event, Hegseth hailed the plan as a 'game changer' and a 'generational investment in security of America and Americans'.
The White House did not immediately release further details about the missile defence system, and the Pentagon is reportedly still working out its capabilities and requirements.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this month that the space-based components of the Golden Dome alone could cost as much as $542bn over the next 20 years.
It noted that a high number of sensors and interceptors would be needed for a space-based system to be effective, particularly as foreign militaries like North Korea's grow more sophisticated.
But on Tuesday, Trump outlined a much lower price tag and timeline.
'It should be fully operational before the end of my term. So, we'll have it done in about three years,' Trump said.
He estimated the total cost to add up to about $175bn, adding that he planned to use existing defence capabilities to build the system.
But the funding for the programme has so far not been secured. At Tuesday's news conference, Trump confirmed that he was seeking $25bn for the system in a tax cut bill currently moving through Congress, although that sum could be cut amid ongoing negotiations.
There is likely to be some variation in the total cost of the project. The Associated Press news agency, for example, cited an unnamed government official as saying that Trump had been given three versions of the plan, described as 'medium', 'high' and 'extra high'.
Those tiers corresponded to how many satellites, sensors and interceptors would be put in space as part of the programme. The news agency reported that Trump chose the 'high' version, which has an initial cost ranging between $30bn and $100bn.
As he explained his plans for the Golden Dome on Tuesday, Trump cited several inspirations, including Israel's 'Iron Dome' missile defence system, which is funded in part by the US.
He also pointed to the work of a fellow Republican, the late President Ronald Reagan, who served in the White House during the Cold War in the 1980s.
As part of his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, Reagan had proposed a barrier to nuclear weapons that included space-based technology.
' We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' Trump said.
But questions have persisted over the viability of a space-based defence system, its price, and whether it could ignite a new arms race.
Democrats have also questioned the possible involvement of Elon Musk's SpaceX, which is a frontrunner among the technology companies seeking to build key components of the system.
A group of 42 Democratic lawmakers have called for a probe into Musk's role in the bidding process, pointing to his position as a special adviser to Trump and his substantial campaign donations to the president.
'If Mr. Musk were to exercise improper influence over the Golden Dome contract, it would be another example
of a disturbing pattern of Mr. Musk flouting conflict of interest rules,' the Democrats wrote in a letter, calling for the probe.
On Tuesday, Trump did not directly respond to a question about which companies would be involved in the Golden Dome. Instead, he highlighted that the system would boost industries in states like Alaska, Indiana, Florida and Georgia.
He added, 'Canada has called us, and they want to be a part of it. So we'll be talking to them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What's next in US President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown?
National Guard soldiers and even the United States Marines are on the streets of Los Angeles. They were deployed by President Donald Trump after mass protests against his immigration raids. California's governor is suing him – while the protests spread to other cities. Could this crisis worsen? Presenter: Folly Bah Thibault Guests: Peter Eliasberg – chief counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Claire Finkelstein – professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Mark Pfeifle – Republican strategist, founder and president of Off the Record Strategies
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Columbia University deserves to lose its accreditation
On June 4, the United States Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) accrediting agency that its member institution Columbia University deserves to have its accreditation pulled. It accused the university of ostensibly being 'in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws' for supposedly failing 'to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment'. This claim is, of course, wrong. It is a blatant mischaracterisation of the events that have taken place on campus over the last 19 months. Yet, it is also true that during that time Columbia violated the terms of its accreditation: by violently abrogating the academic freedom and viewpoint diversity of antigenocide protesters via institutional sanction and the deployment of police on campus. In this sense, Columbia does deserve to lose its accreditation. MSCHE's accreditation policy, which is standard across the industry, states that an 'accredited institution' must possess and demonstrate both 'a commitment to academic freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of expression' and 'a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administration from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives'. It is stunningly evident that since October 7, 2023, Columbia University has egregiously and repeatedly failed to satisfy the MSCHE's fundamental requirements due to its response to antigenocide protests on campus concerning Gaza and Palestine. The violent removal, suspension, and arrest of peaceful student protesters and faculty critics should be understood to constitute a violation of the institution's obligation to protect freedom of expression and academic freedom. On November 10, 2023, Columbia suspended Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) after they organised a peaceful protest for Palestinian rights. The administration justified the suspension by claiming the groups used 'threatening rhetoric and intimidation'. However, media reports, witnesses and university insiders revealed that the suspension was based on an incident involving an unaffiliated individual whose actions were condemned by the organisers and that no formal disciplinary process or appeals process was allowed by the university. It was later uncovered that Columbia administrators had unilaterally altered language in its official policies on student groups just before suspending the SJP and JVP. In January, Katherine Franke, a tenured law professor, retired and said she was 'effectively terminated' by Columbia after facing public and congressional criticism for a media interview criticising students who formerly served in the Israeli army. Similarly, the university has recently acknowledged doling out 'multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocation and expulsions' to dozens of students who participated in 2024 antigenocide protests. One of those expelled, Jewish PhD student Grant Miner, president of the Student Workers of Columbia, noted that all of the students censured by the university 'had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing'. Perhaps worst of all, Columbia has, on repeated occasions, invited the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus to intervene against student expression. On April 30, 2024, according to the university's own report, the NYPD arrested 44 students and individuals with apparent associations with the university. Likewise, in early May this year, about 70 students were arrested after participating in an 'occupation' of the university's library. The NYPD explicitly acknowledged that the presence of its officers on campus was 'at the direct request of Columbia University'. There is little question each of these incidents constitutes blatant stifling of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. The disproportionate targeting of Arab, Muslim, Palestinian and Jewish students and allies can be viewed as discriminatory, undermining the institution's commitment to equitable treatment and inclusive learning environments, in clear violation of MSCHE's guiding principles on equity, diversity and inclusion. These decisions to suppress protests were made unilaterally by senior administration at Columbia – without input from faculty, students or shared governance bodies – clearly signalling a lack of adherence to MSCHE's accreditation policy standard on governance, leadership and administration. By failing to show 'a commitment to shared governance' with 'administrative decision-making that reflects fairness and transparency', Columbia has failed to meet the standards of accreditation outlined by the MSCHE. But Columbia University is not alone in failing to abide by guiding principles of its accreditation. At Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania, Jewish Associate Professor Maura Finkelstein was summarily fired for engaging in social media critiques of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Similarly, at Northwestern University, Assistant Professor Steven Thrasher was subjected to multiple investigations in relation to his support of the student antigenocide encampment on campus and was ultimately denied tenure in a decision he characterised as an effort designed to not just silence him but also to bully him so that 'students, journalists, faculty, staff and activists across campus and throughout the country [may be intimidated] into silencing themselves'. Students too have faced repression across the United States. Indeed, it has been estimated that by July 2024, at least 3,100 students had been arrested for participation in campus antigenocide protests. On November 6, 2023, Brandeis University became the first private university in the US to ban its student chapter of the SJP, for 'conduct that supports Hamas'. In April 2024, Cornell University suspended several students involved in pro-Palestinian encampment protests, citing violations of campus policies. Then in May, police brutalised students with pepper spray at George Washington University while arresting 33 people in the violent clearing-out of its student encampment. At Vanderbilt University, students were arrested and expelled for occupying an administration building. In the most recent news, it has become clear that the University of Michigan has spent at least $800,000 hiring dozens of private investigators to surveil antigenocide student protesters on and off campus in Ann Arbor. These examples are merely a small sample of what has occurred across the US, Canada and Europe since long before October 7, 2023. This is a broader existential crisis in higher education in which the free expression of students is being suppressed at the cost of the values these universities purport to espouse. Despite appearances, this crisis has very little to do with the heavy-handed Trump administration. It is, rather, the self-inflicted consequence of the decisions of university administrators whose allegiances are now first and foremost to donors and corporate stakeholders rather than to their educational missions. If universities are to exist in any plausible and practical sense as institutions devoted to genuine knowledge production and pedagogical development, it is essential that they robustly fulfil accreditation requirements for academic and intellectual freedom, diversity, and fair and transparent administration and governance. There can be no Palestine exception to that. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
World Bank slashes global economic outlook as trade tensions continue
The World Bank has slashed its 2025 global growth forecast, citing trade tensions and policy uncertainty as the United States imposed wide-ranging tariffs that weigh on global economic forecasts. On Tuesday, the bank lowered its projection for global gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.3 percent in its latest economic prospects report, down from the 2.7 percent that it expected in January. This is the most recent in a series of downgrades by international organisations. In its twice-yearly Global Economic Prospects report, the bank lowered its forecasts for nearly 70 percent of all economies, including the US, China and Europe, as well as six emerging market regions, from the levels it projected just six months ago before US President Donald Trump took office. 'That's the weakest performance in 17 years, outside of outright global recessions,' said World Bank Group chief economist Indermit Gill. Global growth and inflation prospects for this year and next have worsened because of 'high levels of policy uncertainty and this growing fragmentation of trade relations', Gill added. 'Without a swift course correction, the harm to living standards could be deep,' he warned. By 2027, the World Bank expects global GDP growth to average 2.5 percent in the 2020s, which would be the slowest rate in any decade since the 1960s. The gloomier projections come as Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on imports from almost all US trading partners in April as well as higher rates on imports of steel and aluminium. He had initially also announced radically higher rates on dozens of these economies, which he has since suspended until early July. Trump's on-again off-again tariff hikes have upended global trade, increased the effective US tariff rate from below 3 percent to the mid-teens, its highest level in almost a century, and triggered retaliation by China and other countries. He also engaged in tit-for-tat escalation with China, although both countries have hit pause on their trade war and temporarily lowered these staggering duties as well. But a lasting truce remains uncertain. While the World Bank's growth downgrade was proportionately larger for advanced economies, the bank cautioned that less wealthy countries have tricky conditions to contend with. Commodity prices are expected to remain suppressed in 2025 and 2026, Gill said. This means that some 60 percent of emerging markets and developing economies – which are commodity exporters – have to deal with a 'very nasty combination of lower commodity prices and more volatile commodity markets'. GDP downturn By 2027, while the per capita GDP of high-income economies will be approximately where it was in pre-pandemic forecasts, corresponding levels for developing economies would be 6 percent lower. 'Except for China, it could take these economies about two decades to recoup the economic losses of the 2020s,' Gill cautioned. Even as GDP growth expectations have been revised downwards, inflation rates have been revised up, he said, urging policymakers to contain inflation risks. Despite trade policy challenges, however, Gill argued that 'If the right policy actions are taken, this problem can be made to go away with limited long-term damage.' He urged for the 'differential in tariff and non-tariff measures with respect to the US' to be quickly reduced by other countries, starting with the Group of 20, which brings together the world's biggest economies. 'Every country should extend the same treatment to other countries,' Gill stressed. 'It's not enough to just liberalise with respect to the US. It's also important to liberalise with respect to the others.' The World Bank said developing economies could lower tariffs on all trading partners and convert preferential trade deals into pacts spanning the 'full range of cross-border regulatory policies' to boost GDP growth. Generally, wealthier countries have lower tariffs than developing countries, which could be seeking to protect budding industries or have fewer sources of government revenue. This month, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development also slashed its 2025 global growth forecast from 3.1 percent to 2.9 percent, warning that Trump's tariffs would stifle the world economy. This came after the International Monetary Fund in April too cut its world growth expectations for this year on the effects of Trump's levies, from 3.3 percent to 2.8 percent.
